Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s look, evolved

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#31

Post by raldi »

mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

We've been using the new logo internally for a week. Give it a day, and then go back and look at the old logo, and then tell me how dated it looks.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#33

Post by 27182818284 »

bad_user wrote: post #29
27182818284 wrote: post #17

Wait, what. At roughly the 1:34 mark, the voice pulls up photos of her kid with a pumpkin. Do you have to tag your photos with "pumpkin" first or is the recent "Choose the picture of waffles" in Recaptcha fueling that?

No, they are automatically classifying photos. If you have photos in Google Photos, you can try it out with words such as "forest", or "dog", or "grill". It's pretty cool and scary at the same time :-)

I did not know they were doing anything other than identifying faces that you've already tagged. Grabbing the pumpkin, whatever out of the photo is just wonderful.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#35

Post by sirtastic »

stormen wrote: post #6

I love it. Quite often logo redesign processes gets completely out of hand, but this was a significant improvement over the older version: Cleaner, more modern and beautiful in all its simplicity. Bravo!

I agree. Material design to me seemed like a great step as well. The different looks between Google products didn't seem so bad till they started to move everything over to material design and I realized how fragmented the previous designs were. Didn't even see the problem till it was fixed. slow clap

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#36

Post by kyrra »

mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

They actually give a reason why they changed it in the blog post. Saying that the old one was designed for desktops and the new one is meant to scale better (for things like watches and phones I'd guess).

Edit: to add from their design blog[0], the new logo can be sent to a client in 305 bytes of compressed SVG (vs 14,000 bytes for the old logo). So it helps with lower bandwidth. The design post also mentions scaling of the logo.

[0] https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-ident...

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#38

Post by jeorgun »

mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

Uncharitably, I'd say the old logo looked much more professional, and so didn't jive with Google's corporate ethos of "seem as much like a preschool as humanly possible". The new one definitely fits better in that respect.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#39

Post by deveac »

mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

My initial reaction is that I like the old one better for now, on my desktop, in a static sense.

But the new one is nice, and the functionality behind it from scaling to leading the users through task-flows just makes too much sense.

And like the shift on iOS, I probably won't like the aesthetics of the old design compared to the new in a few days anyway.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#40

Post by fluidcruft »

mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

I agree--there's something--I don't know, "disposable" or "fadish" or "bland" about the feel of the new one. It seems to have lost personality.
Post reply on HN